PacifiCorp appreciates the work of the WPP on BPM 108, and is grateful for the opportunity to comment.
The following comment is in regards to Appendix I:
Since the senior official for the Participant may not have prepared the QCC calculations themselves, Powerex recommends revising the attestation as follows:
“I, the undersigned, who, as [title], serves as a senior official of [Participant], hereby attest that I have reviewed [Participant]’s Storage Hydro Qualifying Capacity Contribution (QCC) provided this day by [Participant] to Western Power Pool; and, to the best of my knowledge and belief following due inquiry appropriate to the reliability and resource adequacy matters addressed therein: that such QCC has been calculated in accordance with the methodology set forth in BPM 105 Qualifying Resources and such calculation meets all requirements of Tariff section 16.2.5.5;, that [Participant] has provided the Program Administrator with all information necessary to review such QCC that is stated in Tariff, section 16.2.5.5, to the extent requested by the Program Administrator, and that all statements and information included in the FS Submittal with respect to the calculation of such QCC are true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief following due inquiry appropriate to the reliability and resource adequacy matters addressed therein.”
No response submitted.
NorthWestern appreciates the work from WPP and SPP staff and others in devloping this BPM. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
SRP is encouraged by the WPP’s ongoing efforts in the developing of WRAP BPMs and has provided comments on relevant sections within this BPM.
Idaho Power appreciates the work of WPP, SPP and others in preparing this BPM, and the opportunity to provide comments. Thank you.
Jan. 5, 2024, 1:41 p.m.
TYLER MOORE |
Arizona Public Service
For Appendix H, wouldn't this attestation best be done at the Advance Assessment data submittal rather than at the FS submittal? It would be preferred to notify a Participant that if they include DR impacts in historical loads submitted for the Advance Assessment and subsequently try and get credit for the DR program in the FS they can't. Also, there should be some way to remedy this situation and allow the DR to be shown in the FS even if the load was after DR was deployed in the historical loads submitted.
Seattle City Light has no comments on this section.
No response submitted.
See BPA comments attached